<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Like I said, after this last election, the first order of business is pass a budget. Now, I believe that. I supported the Paul Ryan budget and sent it over to the Senate. Now I live with some Senators, I yell at them all the time, I grabbed one of them the other day and shook him and I’d love to get them to vote for it — boy I’d love that. You know but other than me going over there with a gun and holding it to their head and maybe killing a couple of them, I don’t think they’re going to listen unless they get beat. </div></div>

DiabloViejo

02-24-2012, 02:50 PM

Where's all the right wing outrage over Rep. John Sullivan's (R-OK) comments? Oh that's right, the right wing hypocrites are outraged about a comment left by someone in a response on USA Today.. (Meanwhile scumbags like Rep. Sullivan get a pass.)

This is from another thread right here on this board:
HERE YOU GO (http://billiardsdigest.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=378393#Post378393)

Soflasnapper

02-24-2012, 03:07 PM

Myself, I'm in the eye-rolling stage of mild reaction to almost all the things we're supposed to be outraged by.

Stupid people say stupid things every hour of the day. I think the best response is, generally, 'boy, that's stupid!' and leave it at that. Tucker Carlson's offering reached a new level of genocidal commentary, which is indeed somewhat unique.

This guy's comments were jocular, and yes, stupid. He'll deserve whatever hard time people give him on this-- mainly up to the voters that are eligible to vote for him. Comparing what he said to the USA Today letter writer, no use of force was actually called for (just swarming 'em while armed) by the letter writer, whereas this guy mentions murdering some senators himself.

LWW

02-24-2012, 07:43 PM

What part of that do you disagree with?

The demokrook party has long shown that they will never put the nation's interests first unless they fear electoral defeat ... and even then they will only give it lip service.

LWW

02-24-2012, 07:45 PM

What exactly do you find to be outraged about ... other than you were spoon fed that you are outraged?

DiabloViejo

02-24-2012, 08:12 PM

Thanks for the laughs! If anyone here is a spoon-fed automaton it's YOU! You are constantly outraged by anything that doesn't fit into your constricted and constipated world view. You were carrying on about some guy's response in a letter to the editor at USA today (I included the link to the thread), and now you are whining about 'spoon fed' outraged libs. LMMAO!! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

BTW tell Jim and the rest of the lunatics over at Free Republic that I said hi!

LWW

02-25-2012, 05:09 AM

QUESTION:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What exactly do you find to be outraged about ... other than you were spoon fed that you are outraged? </div></div>

Thanks for having my back on this ... nobody thought that you could explain why you were outraged over this, other than you were spoon fed your "OPINION" that you are outraged?

But, it's always good to have a confirmation.

You may now begin rattling your cup against your cell bars demanding your next spoon feeding of regime filtered "TRUTH."

Soflasnapper

02-25-2012, 11:48 AM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What part of that do you disagree with?

The demokrook party has long shown that they will never put the nation's interests first unless they fear electoral defeat ... and even then they will only give it lip service. </div></div>

I disagree with the 'I'd have to kill them with a gun' part. To be clear, it's the killing part, with or without a gun, AND the very idea of putting a gun to their heads in the first place.

Nobody ought to be making such comments, and surely, no elected official ought to. It's a dog whistle for violence instead of civil processes, and thus antithetical to both the rule of law and civil society.

LWW

02-25-2012, 02:24 PM

The dog whistle is what you hear telling you that a threat was made when one clearly was not.

Earlier, in Langley, Coburn partially deflected criticism of President Barack Obama — and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke — by blaming the country's financial woes on Congress. He described his colleagues as "a class of career elitists" and "cowards," and at one point, talking about his frustrations, said, "It's just a good thing I can't pack a gun on the Senate floor."

Coburn doesn't elaborate on what he would do if he was allowed to bring a gun onto the Senate floor, but we have to assume that he would shoot people with it. That's pretty much the only thing you can do with a gun, aside from using it as a paperweight, which would be a good thing, since it would keep his papers from falling off his desk.
</div></div>

Maybe he would just pistol-whip people, or brandish the weapon threateningly, to get the cowardly colleagues to vote the way he thought they should. Hey, he could always (harmlessly) discharge the gun into the air to get their attention, and such! Let's not jump to conclusions, right?

Perhaps it's a surprise to you, but my reaction to this kind of crap is not hate, but raising an eyebrow and tut-tutting that it's very ill-considered commentary from an elected official. On a 1-10 disapproval scale, it rates far from the top max disapproval and is not close to outrage.

Moderation, and modulation, is the key to having the right reaction. I recommend both to you, as key to emotional stability and actual physical health. I worry about your health, and believe you are probably on your way to ulcers or IBS, if you don't already have those problems.

eg8r

02-27-2012, 09:53 AM

Do you disagree with him? Do you think the senators in question are willing to listen without this sort of motivation?

eg8r

Soflasnapper

02-27-2012, 11:31 AM

Clearly he's right that it's a body of paid for, cowardly traitors to the country, but as paid for traitors, they will stay bought against all outside persuasion, because they know how their employers do things when crossed.

Still, his imagery is brutish and feral, unsuited for a man in high office, and a sad commentary on the depths to which our national discourse has typically fallen.

Words mean things, and fall upon unstable persons' ears. If things are so bad that Sen. Coburn's quisling colleagues are lucky he is unable to bring a gun to the floor by rule or law, well maybe Joe Mid-80IQ can get the job done for him (Coburn being too much a gentlemen, but still providing the hidden clues to his loopy constituents).

That's what one or some psychopaths who acted out on Glenn Beck's say so thought, they said. That Glenn couldn't come right out and say it, but they knew EXACTLY what he was telling them to do by reading between the lines.

eg8r

02-27-2012, 12:55 PM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Still, his imagery is brutish and feral, unsuited for a man in high office, and a sad commentary on the depths to which our national discourse has typically fallen.
</div></div>How would you re-word what he said in an acceptable way to uneducated/unstable ears in a way that they would understand the extent it would take to get someone on the other side to listen to what you have to say?

eg8r

Soflasnapper

02-27-2012, 03:27 PM

At the very least, don't make it a personal statement, and rather an impersonal third party remark, and then decry it, taking it back. Better still, don't use violent imagery whatsoever.

Something like, 'I am so frustrated at trying to talk sense into my colleagues. I don't know what would work, short of someone putting a gun to their head. Of course, that's hyperbole, and I'm not suggesting that threats of violence have any place in the deliberations of the Senate.'